Death Penalty Proposal Will Alleviate Backlog, George Tells
Commission

By MICHAEL A. PIEKARZ,
Staff Writer

SACRAMENTO—Chief Justice
Ronald M. George yesterday told the California Commission on the Fair
Administration of Justice that a constitutional amendment is needed to
alleviate the large backlog of full-briefed death penalty appeals pending
before the Supreme Court.

George’s testimony
included a proposal to amend Art. VI, Sec. 12 of the California Constitution as
well as corresponding proposals to modify and improve capital-related habeas
corpus procedures and increase the number of counsel qualified and willing to
accept appointment in capital proceedings.

Citing an increase in
capital cases in the past two decades that has led to a backlog in appeals,
George said his fellow justices have unanimously endorsed a proposal for a
state constitutional amendment to allow the court to transfer death penalty
cases to panels of the Court of Appeal.

The proposed amendment
seeks to eliminate the restriction on transfer of capital cases to the Court of
Appeal, and allow the Supreme Court to summarily affirm Court of Appeal
decisions in such cases under certain conditions. The accompanying proposals
would increase funding and staffing levels to accommodate the death penalty
appellate case load.

George testified that
action was needed on all the submitted proposals to reduce the death penalty
case backlog, and opined that if the Supreme Court handled only existing death
penalty appeals to the exclusion of all other matters it would take three to
four years to process existing cases.

“The justices are
increasingly disturbed by the delays in capital matters,” George told the
commission. He said the ever-increasing backlog of automatic appeals threatens
to overwhelm the Supreme Court’s docket and impair its ability to provide
necessary guidance concerning other important issues arising in criminal and
civil law.

George said that the
proposals were not an attempt to fix all issues involving the court system but
were an attempt to open dialogue to address a critical problem requiring
legislative intervention. “We have done all we can within existing resources,”
George explained.

However, he stressed the
need for action.

“It’s time to do
something about it,” George said.

In addition to his
prepared remarks, George briefly answered commission members’ questions about
the proposals.

Chief among the concerns
raised was whether the proposals would actually reduce the backlog and allow
improved function. George stated that the proposals were far from perfect and
reiterated that they were made in an attempt to open dialogue on a critical
issue.

Opponents quickly
pointed out what they said were flaws in the Supreme Court’s proposals. A
written statement issued by the California Attorneys for Criminal Justice, a
defense lawyers’ group, was critical of the proposed constitutional amendment
because its “limited focus on the appellate review system runs an unintended
but genuine risk of masking far more fundamental flaws infecting the state’s
death penalty system.”

CACJ president Rickard
Santwier, a Pasadena lawyer, wrote:

“While the system of
appellate review may need fixing, that fix should come as part of a sensible
re-evaluation of the entire system, not as an appellate band-aid to decrease
the workload of the California Supreme Court.”

Opponents also contended
that the proposals would not alleviate the backlog.

“Our basic criticism is
that the proposal is nothing more than a shell game,” Natasha Minsker, death
penalty policy director for the ACLU of Northern California, said. “The
proposals would take us from a one step appeals process to a three step
process. How is that going to speed things up?”

Despite the criticism,
some agreed with George’s assertion that the proposals were an attempt to open
dialogue rather then provide a complete systemic fix.

“The court’s position
comes from a limited perspective and involves only a procedural change that
doesn’t address all the problems,” Minsker said.